Author Topic: Public Charter Schools Teaching Creationism And Right-Wing Propaganda In Texas  (Read 18929 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Can we stick to one discipline here because we were discussing macroevolution and you've flipped to abiogenesis. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but it keeps it consistent.

I don't have a problem with you saying you don't know the method god used. However, do you agree/understand that whatever method god used he is still instigating abiogenesis?

Sure. If I' understanding you correctly, that would seem to make sense.

Right then, if you believe that whatever method god used to instigate abiogenesis can't be established by science, then it follows that you must believe that god, and therefore ID, is outside the purview of science.

Intelligent Design Theory takes no position whatsoever on whether the "intelligence" is supernatural or not.

Your assertion here seems to be confusing my beliefs with IDT.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6824
  • Darwins +551/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Intelligent Design Theory takes no position whatsoever on whether the "intelligence" is supernatural or not.
Then why is it that only fundamental, bible-literalist, Christians[1] ever espouse it?

I am disappointed in your transparent dissimulation. Such statements do not sit well with reality.
 1. and fundamentalist Muslims
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Intelligent Design Theory takes no position whatsoever on whether the "intelligence" is supernatural or not.
Then why is it that only fundamental, bible-literalist, Christians[1] ever espouse it?
 1. and fundamentalist Muslims


This was briefly discussed earlier in the thread. Go here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26224.msg600894.html#msg600894
« Last Edit: February 16, 2014, 09:43:07 AM by BibleStudent »

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11208
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.


Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5252
  • Darwins +600/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Here's some support for the idea that intelligent design/creationism is pushed almost exclusively by religious groups (from Americans United):  https://www.au.org/resources/publications/science-religion-and-public-education

Quote
On the surface, intelligent design appears to be something different. ID advocates claim that they have uncovered scientific evidence that an intelligent force, i.e. God, created humankind and the universe. The concept sidesteps some of the more far-fetched claims of traditional creationists and does not address issues such as the age of the Earth.

But just below ID’s surface lurk many of the same discredited anti-evolution arguments that have been promoted by creationists for years. It seems obvious that ID is a form of "creationism lite," deliberately created by fundamentalists to get a foot in the door of the public school science classroom.

....

Yet a closer look shows that ID remains a religious concept. The "designer" whom Religious Right proponents herald could only be God. They have offered no other plausible candidates.

....

Some ID advocates are forthright about their religious agenda when speaking to sympathetic audiences. Phillip Johnson, considered a founding guru of the movement, told a religious gathering in 1999 that he uses ID to convince people of the truth of the Bible and talk to them about "the question of sin." From there, Johnson said, people are "introduced to Jesus." Jonathan Wells, another prominent ID proponent, says he was persuaded to criticize evolution after becoming a member of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church.

....

It’s worth pointing out that ID and other forms of creationism are grounded only in certain varieties of religion. Most major denominations made their peace with evolution long ago because the scientific evidence for it is so compelling. Today, only militantly fundamentalist groups tend to oppose evolution.
BibleStudent himself has made it clear that he considers the 'designer' to be God, for that matter.  So has every intelligent design advocate that I have ever heard or read on the subject.  Granted, that doesn't mean that all of them do, but it's telling that the ones who push intelligent design the hardest do so for religious reasons, not scientific ones.

In addition, TalkOrigins has a page which demonstrates the religious agenda of major intelligent design advocates, such as Phillip Johnson (the founder of the modern intelligent design movement and a born-again Christian), Jonathan Wells (a major intelligent design advocate who believed his mission was to "destroy Darwinism after joining Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church), and William Dembski (a member of the Discovery Institute who infamously said, "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory").

Here is an article written by someone who purports that intelligent design is agnostic and simply seeks to establish that a supernatural intelligence, irrespective of religion, designed life.  Yet he still describes the question in terms of a dichotomy between a supernatural force and natural science (and, in fact, tries to sneak in the idea that if it was a supernatural force, then natural science is the study of what that supernatural force "intelligently designed").  This is because intelligent design cannot have anything but a supernatural force - whatever you choose to call it - in the position of 'designer'.  It can't be space aliens or anything else along those lines - at least according to intelligent design - because then you're just pushing the question back a step; who designed the space aliens?

The question intelligent design advocates think we should be asking is, "what supernatural force caused life to come to be?"[1]  And that makes it blatantly clear that intelligent design is, at heart, a religious proposition.  It was never about actually trying to find out if a supernatural force might have created life.
 1. as far as they're concerned, there's no question that it must have been a supernatural force, even though they have no evidence to back this up

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2802
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
Yes, the ID crowd are keen to show how different ID is from creationism. There's plenty on ID websites. Yet we still have the evidence of the school textbook, 'Of Pandas and People'.

Biblestudent, I've asked you this before and I would really like the answer. The above book was a creationist textbook that got banned in schools in the USA as it was openly teaching religion - something that is best banned in schools. (there's the whole weekend for religion is the child wants to use it that way!) At the Dover trial, by way of drafts and computer files, the court was shown that the above book was modified to be ID merely by changing the word 'god' to the word 'designer' more or less successfully. This was a clear attempt to get religion into the science classes and evade the previous court decision. Whilst it may be possible to claim that ID is nothing to do with creationism as ID is usually explained, surely this changing of a school textbook shows that the to are intimately joined together. how do you see this, Biblestudent.

Since Philip Johnson is mentioned as the 'guru' of ID, I thought some quotes of his might help.

Quote
This [the intelligent design movement] isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy.
World Magazine, 30 November 1996
Quote
If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this. ... We call our strategy the "wedge."
Quote
So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" — the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.
(quotes from here)

I think Johnson agrees with the 'Of Pandas and People' above - a strategy to get religion into schools without getting banned.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Yes, the ID crowd are keen to show how different ID is from creationism. There's plenty on ID websites. Yet we still have the evidence of the school textbook, 'Of Pandas and People'.

Biblestudent, I've asked you this before and I would really like the answer. The above book was a creationist textbook that got banned in schools in the USA as it was openly teaching religion - something that is best banned in schools. (there's the whole weekend for religion is the child wants to use it that way!) At the Dover trial, by way of drafts and computer files, the court was shown that the above book was modified to be ID merely by changing the word 'god' to the word 'designer' more or less successfully. This was a clear attempt to get religion into the science classes and evade the previous court decision. Whilst it may be possible to claim that ID is nothing to do with creationism as ID is usually explained, surely this changing of a school textbook shows that the to are intimately joined together. how do you see this, Biblestudent.

Since Philip Johnson is mentioned as the 'guru' of ID, I thought some quotes of his might help.

Quote
This [the intelligent design movement] isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy.
World Magazine, 30 November 1996
Quote
If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this. ... We call our strategy the "wedge."
Quote
So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" — the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.
(quotes from here)

I think Johnson agrees with the 'Of Pandas and People' above - a strategy to get religion into schools without getting banned.

"Frankly, it is astounding that Judge Jones treats Pandas as central to his decision given that he refused to grant the book's publisher, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, permission to intervene in the case in order to defend itself."  http://www.discovery.org/a/3135#title3

Here is the legal brief:   http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=648

There was very little evidence to suggest this was some end-around move to "sneak" ID into the public school curriculum.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 579
  • Darwins +86/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Can we stick to one discipline here because we were discussing macroevolution and you've flipped to abiogenesis. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but it keeps it consistent.

I don't have a problem with you saying you don't know the method god used. However, do you agree/understand that whatever method god used he is still instigating abiogenesis?

Sure. If I' understanding you correctly, that would seem to make sense.

Right then, if you believe that whatever method god used to instigate abiogenesis can't be established by science, then it follows that you must believe that god, and therefore ID, is outside the purview of science.

Intelligent Design Theory takes no position whatsoever on whether the "intelligence" is supernatural or not.

Your assertion here seems to be confusing my beliefs with IDT.

You have got to be kidding? You've been using ID throughout this thread as an argument for the god you believe in, unless you've been playing a huge prank? The argument you put forward and what this actual thread is effin' about, is about how ID is used for a supernatural intelligence, so don't even pretend by giving us this bull now that ID doesn't take a position on whether the intelligence is supernatural or not, because that is what you're arguing for.

I honestly can't believe that this is the route you have now taken to try and shimmy away from the fact that based on what you believe, you must now accept that ID isn't science. You cannot say that ID is science, then say god knows the mechanism he used for abiogenesis, and then go on to say that science is hopeless at replicating that mechanism. Something has to give - either you retract that ID is science or accept that science can potentially replicate whatever mechanism was used for abiogenesis.
If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
You are claiming tha macroevolution occurred. I disagree. Based on the evidence we currently have, the life forms we observe today and in the fossil record came into existence in form. Common ancestry from a single celled organism did not occur.
And how do you know this, exactly?  Have you actually reviewed the evidence we currently have, or even a significant portion of it?  Have you observed all life forms, or even enough of them to get a statistical sample?  Have you reviewed the fossil record, or even a fraction of it?

If you (and by extension the other intelligent design advocates) have not done those things, then your declaration that common ancestry did not occur is invalid, because you are not basing it on the evidence.  This is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of opinion, and not a particularly well-informed one.

Which came first...DNA or RNA?....or did they both form at the same time?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
You have got to be kidding? You've been using ID throughout this thread as an argument for the god you believe in, unless you've been playing a huge prank? The argument you put forward and what this actual thread is effin' about, is about how ID is used for a supernatural intelligence, so don't even pretend by giving us this bull now that ID doesn't take a position on whether the intelligence is supernatural or not, because that is what you're arguing for.

I don't know what you're getting so riled up about. I have been pretty clear that my personal beliefs are based on a number of factors and that the science of ID is one of those factors. My personal beliefs do not alter the claims of ID science.

Quote
I honestly can't believe that this is the route you have now taken to try and shimmy away from the fact that based on what you believe, you must now accept that ID isn't science. You cannot say that ID is science, then say god knows the mechanism he used for abiogenesis, and then go on to say that science is hopeless at replicating that mechanism. Something has to give - either you retract that ID is science or accept that science can potentially replicate whatever mechanism was used for abiogenesis.

You have yourself pretty tangled up. Why would I have to deem IDT as non-scientific based on my personal beliefs? I am simply claiming that I believe that the "intelligence" IDT posits is the God of the Bible. The scientists doing the work on
IDT can claim whatever they like. For me, the evidence they have produced compliments the Biblical origin of life account.

And, I can most certainly say that science is hopeless at replicating the mechanism for abiogenesis because only God has the intelligence and power to make such an event even occur.

Which came first....RNA or DNA...or did they both come into existence at the same time?

Offline shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1967
  • Darwins +110/-2
Bible Student, here is a link showing RNA or DNA in viruses. Viruses are a good study because it is an early form of DNA/RNA in early cell evolution with few parts.

Quote
Viruses are infectious agents with both living and nonliving characteristics.
1. Living characteristics of viruses
a. They reproduce at a fantastic rate, but only in living host cells.
b. They can mutate.
2. Nonliving characteristics of viruses
a. They are acellular, that is, they contain no cytoplasm or cellular organelles.
b. They carry out no metabolism on their own and must replicate using the host cell's metabolic machinery. In other words, viruses don't grow and divide. Instead, new viral components are synthesized and assembled within the infected host cell.
c. The vast majority of viruses possess either DNA or RNA but not both.

http://faculty.ccbcmd.edu/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit3/viruses/classvir.html

It is a science link  - medical I believe, so there won't be much about god doing it all in 6 days 6000 years ago.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2014, 07:32:58 PM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Bible Student, here is a link showing RNA or DNA in viruses. Viruses are a good study because it is an early form of DNA/RNA in early cell evolution with few parts.

Quote
Viruses are infectious agents with both living and nonliving characteristics.
1. Living characteristics of viruses
a. They reproduce at a fantastic rate, but only in living host cells.
b. They can mutate.
2. Nonliving characteristics of viruses
a. They are acellular, that is, they contain no cytoplasm or cellular organelles.
b. They carry out no metabolism on their own and must replicate using the host cell's metabolic machinery. In other words, viruses don't grow and divide. Instead, new viral components are synthesized and assembled within the infected host cell.
c. The vast majority of viruses possess either DNA or RNA but not both.

http://faculty.ccbcmd.edu/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit3/viruses/classvir.html

It is a science link  - medical I believe, so there won't be much about god doing it all in 6 days 6000 years ago.

Yes. I understand this....but the question still remains....which came first in the origin of life....RNA or DNA?

Offline shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1967
  • Darwins +110/-2
With my knowledge of this type of science barely fitting in a thimble, I don't know.  Maybe science isn't sure - dare I say - yet?

edit:  Bible Student, you've taken me on a fun tangent.  Here are some links.  One of the things that shows an 'unintelligent' evolution, if you will, is the number of short redundant strands, or strands that do nothing, or, I believe medicine is finding 'loose' DNA in the brain that has folks puzzled.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Evolution
« Last Edit: February 16, 2014, 08:27:47 PM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
With my knowledge of this type of science barely fitting in a thimble, I don't know.  Maybe science isn't sure - dare I say - yet?

edit:  Bible Student, you've taken me on a fun tangent.

Glad to hear that. Hope you are as fascinated as me by the subject of biology.

Quote
Here are some links.  One of the things that shows an 'unintelligent' evolution, if you will, is the number of short redundant strands, or strands that do nothing, or, I believe medicine is finding 'loose' DNA in the brain that has folks puzzled.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Evolution
[/quote]

Thank you for the links. There is a mountain of information available at our fingertips these days. I am familiar with the second link you provided but not the first.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1348
  • Darwins +101/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
I don't know what you're getting so riled up about. I have been pretty clear that my personal beliefs are based on a number of factors and that the science of ID is one of those factors. My personal beliefs do not alter the claims of ID science.

It's been shown to you that there is NO SUCH THING.  I, for one, haven't seen you answer any of the posts that explain why ID is not science.  Are you even reading the same threads I am??
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
I don't know what you're getting so riled up about. I have been pretty clear that my personal beliefs are based on a number of factors and that the science of ID is one of those factors. My personal beliefs do not alter the claims of ID science.

It's been shown to you that there is NO SUCH THING.  I, for one, haven't seen you answer any of the posts that explain why ID is not science.  Are you even reading the same threads I am??

He simply refuses to accept reality. He is a theist; delusional is par for the course.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
  • Darwins +32/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
I don't know what you're getting so riled up about. I have been pretty clear that my personal beliefs are based on a number of factors and that the science of ID is one of those factors. My personal beliefs do not alter the claims of ID science.

It's been shown to you that there is NO SUCH THING.  I, for one, haven't seen you answer any of the posts that explain why ID is not science.  Are you even reading the same threads I am??
The delusion is strong with this one.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5252
  • Darwins +600/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Which came first...DNA or RNA?....or did they both form at the same time?
I asked how you knew that common ancestry from a single-celled organism did not occur.  This is not only not an answer to that question, it isn't even related to it.  The question of whether DNA or RNA came first would do nothing for your claim, one way or the other.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5252
  • Darwins +600/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Intelligent Design Theory takes no position whatsoever on whether the "intelligence" is supernatural or not.
Intelligent design does not get to simply say "intelligence did it", at least not if its advocates want it to be taken seriously as scientific.  It must propose a specific "intelligent designer", instead of leaving the question open, especially when there are so many possiblities.  Science works by presenting specific hypotheses and then experimenting repeatedly to check the hypothesis against reality.  If intelligent design does not do this, it cannot be called a science at all.  So if ID truly does take no position on the qualities of the purported intelligence, then it is not science.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Which came first...DNA or RNA?....or did they both form at the same time?
I asked how you knew that common ancestry from a single-celled organism did not occur.  This is not only not an answer to that question, it isn't even related to it.  The question of whether DNA or RNA came first would do nothing for your claim, one way or the other.

I am answering your question....albeit with a question. The point being that the 'common ancestor' is impossible unless there is some way for you to explain which came first and how.


Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Which came first...DNA or RNA?....or did they both form at the same time?
I asked how you knew that common ancestry from a single-celled organism did not occur.  This is not only not an answer to that question, it isn't even related to it.  The question of whether DNA or RNA came first would do nothing for your claim, one way or the other.

I am answering your question....albeit with a question. The point being that the 'common ancestor' is impossible unless there is some way for you to explain which came first and how.

Impossible he says.  Well there you have it folks I guess we can stop looking.  Who says religion impedes science anyway?!?!  Those silly people.

There is simply no reason to fully dismiss the possibility of a Creator.
Could you give a few examples of something that you feel you can 'fully dismiss' the possibility of?

Nope.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Intelligent Design Theory takes no position whatsoever on whether the "intelligence" is supernatural or not.
Intelligent design does not get to simply say "intelligence did it", at least not if its advocates want it to be taken seriously as scientific.  It must propose a specific "intelligent designer", instead of leaving the question open, especially when there are so many possiblities.  Science works by presenting specific hypotheses and then experimenting repeatedly to check the hypothesis against reality.  If intelligent design does not do this, it cannot be called a science at all.  So if ID truly does take no position on the qualities of the purported intelligence, then it is not science.

I have already shown how IDT follows the scientific method and have demonstrated that it can be falsified. Creating your own ad hoc-like interpretation of whether IDT meets the criteria does not invalidate it's clear satisfaction of meeting the requirements.

Besides, is "intelligence" not a quality? Yes, it is. And in this case, it is identifiable.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Which came first...DNA or RNA?....or did they both form at the same time?
I asked how you knew that common ancestry from a single-celled organism did not occur.  This is not only not an answer to that question, it isn't even related to it.  The question of whether DNA or RNA came first would do nothing for your claim, one way or the other.

I am answering your question....albeit with a question. The point being that the 'common ancestor' is impossible unless there is some way for you to explain which came first and how.

Impossible he says.  Well there you have it folks I guess we can stop looking.  Who says religion impedes science anyway?!?!  Those silly people.

I appreciate your sense of humor but I would really like to hear you address the specific reason I made the assertion that I did.


Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.

Impossible he says.  Well there you have it folks I guess we can stop looking.  Who says religion impedes science anyway?!?!  Those silly people.

I appreciate your sense of humor but I would really like to hear you address the specific reason I made the assertion that I did.

You are engaging in special pleading now.

You first say that there is no reason to fully dismiss the possibility of a creator, which I agree with.  Then you respond that you couldn't give a few examples of anything you could fully dismiss the possibility of, which I also agree with.

Now, the common ancestor is impossible because maybe we can't explain which of DNA or RNA came first and how.  Talk about a flimsy argument considering the overwhelming mountain ranges of evidence that points to a common ancestor, but let's ignore that for now and instead use your own logic.  Can ID explain how the designer designs and what order the designer designed everything?

If ID or you can't explain how the designer designs and what order the designer designed everything then "Intelligent Design" must be impossible.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5252
  • Darwins +600/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I am answering your question....albeit with a question. The point being that the 'common ancestor' is impossible unless there is some way for you to explain which came first and how.
Answering a question with a question can be rude.  Especially in a situation like this, where your question is a non sequitur; that is, it does not follow from the question I asked.

Leaving that aside, the reasoning behind your question didn't relate to what I asked either.  Saying that a common ancestor is impossible unless we can explain whether DNA or RNA came first is only an assertion, and a baseless one at that.  How does the question of which came first have anything to do with whether all life has a common ancestor?  You cannot seriously expect anyone to take you seriously when you pull something like this.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6758
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
I've been doing my Chauncey routine and just watching, but what the fuck does the RNA/DNA question have to do with whether or not we have a common ancestor. If RNA came first, then DNA, we could have a common ancestor. And visa versa.

We don't have the specifics. The first living things weren't kind enough to have bones and stuff and hence they are sort of hard to track down. We can work backwards via our genes and figure out where things came from over time, but not so specifically that we can define or describe the first living things yet. And we may never be able to. But in the meantime, we're here, and without either a god or intelligence involved, it still appears to be possible that life started on its on.

We could be wrong. Maybe a god did do it. May a non-god with gobs of intelligence and good looks did it. May all of this stuff came from other dimensions that we can't detect. But based on what we can see, what we can measure, what we can investigate, what we can disassemble, what we can discover, it appears quite likely that life started on its own and that the evolved creatures that we are came from very simple beginnings. We have so much genetic evidence of a common ancestors and such that it would be foolhearty to just ignore that information and fill in everything with even more undefinable, and less provable, intelligent design.

Science is not afraid to find externalities that defy explanation. Right now there are physicists seriously exploring the possibility that the entire universe is a hologram. You know, like Princess Leia in Star wars flicking on and off in her first crude appearance. The whole universe might be some variation no that theme. And if it is, then you guys can run around yelling intelligent design at the top of your lungs and we won't have much to say in response.

Right now science is trying to solve the mysteries of life based on the evidence that is available. Id'ers want us to assume that there are blanks to be filled in, and assume that those blanks involve external intelligence, and most of those people want to continue that pattern of assumption and guess wildly that their specific version of god was involved. And if they had anything to offer outside of their complete misunderstanding and/or ignorance of science, like, you know, evidence of their own, that would be great. But it is so easy to disassemble their few and flimsy claims that it generally isn't worth it for the science side to send anyone over twelve years of age into the fray. Except here, perhaps, where we do it at the hobby level.

Its fine for people to think that the world was intelligently designed. But they have to realize that if all they can do is "think" that to be the case, and if they can't provide any solid evidence for their claims, then they have nothing for us to work with, and hence we will summarily reject their ideas until such time as ID'ers can muster less contrarian versions of their "discoveries" and "claims".

When science says "We don't know", ID'ers take that as carte blanche permission to dismiss all discovery that flies in the face of ID IDeals. But when I was in high school, we didn't know how photosynthesis worked, though plants did it anyway. Now we know. But had you asked for details in the 1060's we would have had to say "We don't know", because we didn't. So Im confidence that many of todays "I don't knows" will have very specific and provable answers in the coming years. You gotta learn to be patient.

Give us a few more decades and we'll have far fewer "don't knows" to argue over. Give us a century or two and maybe we'll have so few that you ID types will have to slink away with your tails between your legs. Or, if you're lucky, it might be science slinking away. For now, our lack of proof in some departments and your lack of proof in any department means that we are at a standstill. Because you don't know when you're dead in the water, and you keep claiming that you're doing fine.

Live with it. And accept that while ID science types are looking under every nook and cranny for better excuses, real scientists are doing real science and improving our knowledge base at our current rate, which is measured in units best described as "leaps and bounds". And science will be doing this for years to come. The ID argument will remain static, and just as desperate, and just as lacking in specifics, probably for centuries. So while science continues to add relevant information on a daily basis, you ID proponents need to do the same thing, or you'll be dead in the water. And you'll start to look like fools.

Oops, I'm too late. Sorry, but I was trying to save you guys from some embarrassment. To do any good, I should have written this in 1975. My bad.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2802
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
Yes, the ID crowd are keen to show how different ID is from creationism. There's plenty on ID websites. Yet we still have the evidence of the school textbook, 'Of Pandas and People'.

Biblestudent, I've asked you this before and I would really like the answer. The above book was a creationist textbook that got banned in schools in the USA as it was openly teaching religion - something that is best banned in schools. (there's the whole weekend for religion is the child wants to use it that way!) At the Dover trial, by way of drafts and computer files, the court was shown that the above book was modified to be ID merely by changing the word 'god' to the word 'designer' more or less successfully. This was a clear attempt to get religion into the science classes and evade the previous court decision. Whilst it may be possible to claim that ID is nothing to do with creationism as ID is usually explained, surely this changing of a school textbook shows that the to are intimately joined together. how do you see this, Biblestudent.

Since Philip Johnson is mentioned as the 'guru' of ID, I thought some quotes of his might help.

Quote
This [the intelligent design movement] isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy.
World Magazine, 30 November 1996
Quote
If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this. ... We call our strategy the "wedge."
Quote
So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" — the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.
(quotes from here)

I think Johnson agrees with the 'Of Pandas and People' above - a strategy to get religion into schools without getting banned.

"Frankly, it is astounding that Judge Jones treats Pandas as central to his decision given that he refused to grant the book's publisher, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, permission to intervene in the case in order to defend itself."  http://www.discovery.org/a/3135#title3

Here is the legal brief:   http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=648

There was very little evidence to suggest this was some end-around move to "sneak" ID into the public school curriculum.

You forgot to comment on the quotes above. Could you do so, please?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5252
  • Darwins +600/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I have already shown how IDT follows the scientific method and have demonstrated that it can be falsified. Creating your own ad hoc-like interpretation of whether IDT meets the criteria does not invalidate it's clear satisfaction of meeting the requirements.
You claiming that intelligent design follows the scientific method does not therefore show that it actually does; the same goes for claiming that it can be falsified.  I unfortunately have very little doubt that you think it does, but all that actually shows is your opinion on the matter.

I went through seven pages of your posts (not the posts in this thread, your own actual posts) and could not find where you 'showed' this, in any case.  I do recall something along those lines; I also recall that someone criticized it and I don't remember if anything else happened after that.  I would appreciate it if you could either find that topic or restate it here.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Besides, is "intelligence" not a quality? Yes, it is. And in this case, it is identifiable.
How?  ID doesn't just not attempt to identify just what the supposed 'designer' might be; it doesn't even give specific criteria for identifying supposed 'design'.  As far as I can tell - and I've been following the subject for years - intelligent design pretty much boils down to the unwillingness of its advocates to accept that life could have happened naturally, on its own.  Your own responses to this thread show this as well; you've stated that unless we can show whether DNA or RNA came first, it's impossible for life to have a common ancestor[1], and earlier, that common ancestry from a single-celled organism did not occur.

Yet despite telling us that common ancestry is impossible unless we can explain some arbitrary thing for you which doesn't appear to have anything to do with common ancestry, you have no problem saying that things that you don't understand (and which just so happen to fit with what you already believe) happened, as if they're factually proven.  For example, your statement a few days ago about not knowing the method God used to assemble non-living matter into living matter[2] - clearly showing that despite this lack of knowledge, you have no doubt that God did, in fact, assemble non-living matter into living matter.

You do not get to arbitrarily rule out things that you disagree with while simultaneously pretending that things that you disagree with happened without question.  Neither attitude is at all scientific; the problem is, both attitudes are very common amongst advocates of intelligent design.  It happens over, and over, and over again; one argument, because the chances of the raw materials that make up a single-celled bacteria spontaneously coming together to form that bacteria are vanishingly small, that the bacteria couldn't have come out through natural means and must have been made.  Another argument, that the odds of 100 amino acids linked together in a chain being able to produce a protein molecule are too low, thus it couldn't have happened naturally and must have been done by some intelligence.  A third argument, that the flagellum (or the blood clotting process, or the ATP synthase enzyme) are too complex and precise to have come about naturally, so they must have been designed.  The list goes on and on.

But all of those, and countless others besides, are arguments from ignorance.  They make no effort to figure out how those things really happened, but just attempt to arbitrarily rule out natural processes so they can insert a 'designer' of their choice.  Worse, they often then try to exempt their selected designer from having to be explained (assuming they have the intellectual honesty to address it at all), such as by stating that it's an "uncaused cause".  Sound familiar?

Nobody here is saying that you have to accept naturalistic means as arbitrarily true.  But you can't simply say that they're impossible, either (especially since you don't have actual evidence which falsifies them).
 1. Even leaving aside the arbitrariness of what you picked as the goalposts, you clearly don't know yourself which came first, demonstrated by the very question you posed.  Moreover, you were quite nonspecific as to which option would actually disprove the common ancestor; did you think this wouldn't be noticed?  Finally, you failed to show how your "which came first" question had anything to do with the possibility of a common ancestor.
 2. and indeed, admitting that we probably can never know the exact method